Leaderboard

this is funny, they forced immigration on themselves of over 1/2 the world, then when the tables turn, it is a crisis. Well played by whoever created this.

The new home that we moved into had been neglected for years. The front & back yards was just a mess. So, we are making them new. In a nod to our Biblical roots, we have purchased and are planting some Papyrus. We are planting a number of Passion Fruit. It is good to eat. NOTE: Generally we will not be planting edible fruit.

sadly, I have a hunch that, should the bill be passed, the schools without the waiver (and that apparently includes all the SDA universities) will see an influx of litigation against them...

My wife is now thinking of putting them is a water feature. So . . .

This morning came in my e-box a mail about this topic of being born-again. I think too much legitimacy has been given to the argument of "Imputed" vs "Imparted" righteousness. It's as if some either forget or try to neglect the very basic premise that Christ emphasized when He told Nicodemus that no one who is not born again will ever see the kingdom. It is spiritually (and theologically) impossible to divorce the "mind of Christ" in you via the new birth and imparted righteousness. Impossible. He who tries to "get into" the kingdom by either trying to earn it or claiming Christ's blood while remaining unconverted and not born again is attempting an impossibility. This should be known and taught at the most basic, elementary levels of Christian growth. If we would be less like Nicodemus who forgot even the most BASIC tenants of the Christian faith and grace and the gospel and more like a little child, learning at the foot of Christ, we would be able to lay this debate into the grave once and for all. The good news of the gospel is that Christ can live IN us and that this is the means to our salvation. If we loved Him we would rejoice about this amazing grace.Share this simple truth the next time someone wants to debate "Imparted" vs "Imputed" righteousness. There is absolutely no such thing as a separation of the two, nor a new birth without both.God bless,CM

The message I was taught in 7th and 8th grade through high school at an Adventist Academy was NOT Salvation by grace through faith. That was not even a blip on the RADAR of Adventism back then. What I was taught by our very earnest and zealous Bible instructor was that salvation came from FIRST being Justified by the blood of Jesus on the cross, and SECOND by becoming Sanctified by the truth in the Bible. We were taught that it took BOTH Justification and Sanctification to be saved. Now I have modified my understanding a little since then, to specify that it is the WORDS OF JESUS that He gave His own eyewitness disciples while HE was here on earth. But the basic premise is the same; that Adventism originally taught that we had to 'work out our own salvation with fear and trembling', and that our deeds did count toward our gaining eternal life. Rev 2:4 'But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Rev 2:5 'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lamp stand out of its place—unless you repent. The SDA church has left it's FIRST LOVE, which happened when they lost sight of the words of Jesus as the arbiter of truth, in favor of a female prophetess who became the fulcrum upon which ALL truth found in Adventism eventually rested. Note the above text says, "Repent and do the DEEDS you did at first." These deeds were both group and individual Bible studies that primarily took place in homes, where Advent believers would 'hash out' the meaning of texts and passages, and come to consensus about the truth of Scripture and the meaning of prophecy. Later, this kind of study gave way to simply asking EGW what the meanings of texts or passages were, she would dictate the answer, and that would be the end of the discussion. The SDA church is still in that same place with regards truth as it was back then. Jesus even spoke of this issue in Rev. 2: 18-29, where in the prophecy describes the prophetess of this 'Kingdom of the Heavens' in specific detail that can only relate to a single, identifiable, person. EGW has sidetracked, and highjacked, the truth to such an extent that the focus of the early church was changed from it's original charge of taking the gospel of the Kingdom to the world (Matt. 24:14, 28:18-20), to taking the gospel of Paul and of EGW to the world in it's place. This has not worked out well for the Advent movement, and God in prophecy has reminds this singular group that they need to: Rev 3:2 'Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.' When I was baptized, Ellen White was NOT considered to be a test of faith that would keep a person from becoming a member in good standing in the SDA church if they did not believe in her; and belief in her as a prophet of God was not included as part of the 13 steps to becoming baptized. This belief was completely optional, and up to the individual as to whether they would accept her ministry, or not. Today, the church couches it's belief in EGW in the subtle terms found in No. 17 of the Fundamentals of the church, which states that, "Ellen White is a continuing and authoritative source of truth", that continues the testimony found in the Bible. This puts her on an equal footing with the information found in Scripture, at least according to the SDA church. And since EGW named Paul as the "Greatest Apostle", believers naturally began placing more and more emphasis of the writings of Paul and EGW than on the words of Jesus, especially those found in Matthew and John. This is what I meant by 'secondary issues' to the truth. I know this was a long presentation, but it does tell you why I choose to not be named as a modern Seventh-day Adventist, although I identify closely with your founders and what they believed, before EGW came along and changed our Scriptural understanding so that would not be recognized by those very founders.

Like most other plants, papyrus has an number of species. We are planting a species that can be grown in this area and does not need to be near a lake, river or pond. In any case we have purchased it from a large seller of plants that can be grown in this area.

Agreed...In fact college algebra and trigonometry should be second nature too....Maybe not higher math, but at least the basics. I've asked young people in college "what is the square root of 4?" They reply "2". Then I asked "is that your final answer"? Then they look at me bewildered. The answer, of course, is it has two roots: +2 and -2. Should be basic....

I'm about to teach a series of classes for teachers of junior high science who want to be senior high science teachers. One of the challenges is that this kind of math really should be second nature, as it is to me... and in some cases it isn't.

My husband is family practice/ internal med. He said he will just give anyone with such "issues" a copy of the article.

That is the question...Who is the enemy? History says it any who don't agree with the status quo!!

Any way, anyone is free to share here what they believe as long as there is a respectful listening and give and take. When someone stops by and says "There is no investigative judgment" and never shows up again. When someone posts large amounts pointing where Mrs. White copied and does not let us explain how and why she copied and they take a quote out of context that make it looks like she's denying the copying and say that she's a fraud and refuses to look at the evidence and demands us to give up belief in her work and demands us to give up the Investigative Judgment, they are a wolf in sheep's clothing. . For someone to come here and demands us to accept their understanding of the nature of Christ. Or tell us that unless we accept their understanding of the nature of Christ that we are simply Fordites and liberals. Then they are wolves in sheep's clothing. There are wolves in sheep's clothing here among the liberals and conservatives and if I was to just demand that you accept what I believe then I'd be one too. Open discussion and a equal marketplace of ideas is welcome. Those who come to either belittle us, or to demand the acceptance of their ideas and just want to keep harping in a one sided discussion are the wolves in sheep's clothing. When you say "Tradition has told me that the Bible is against women's ordination because of these texts, and you are not allowed to give any evidence that the tradition is wrong in interpreting this text, unless you find a clear proof texts that says that I should not believe what tradition says about this text" that is what we are complaining about. You are free to hold and defend what ever view of women's ordination that you understand. The problem is that there is something that you have added to the words to reach your interpretation and you don't want us to question your extra Biblical information.

Rossw. This forum tends to be more moderate than progressive. Most of us believe that Mrs. White is a prophet. Most of us are creationists. Most of us believe and love the Investigative Judgment. However not all of us are moderate, we have conservatives and progressives here. Not all of us believe that Mrs. White is a Prophet and some who believe she is a prophet believe that we should only interpret her via the ideas of people such as Elders Washburn and Wilkinson. Not all of us are creationists and among the creationists you have those who strongly believe in the 7 literal day creation week but not the 6,000 years, or are strongly under 10,000 years, or are very strict 6,000 years. Not everyone here believes or loves the Investigative Judgment. We all agree that we can listen and discuss. I share the reasons why I love Mrs. White (but also share that I read a number of letters she and Willie wrote to Washburn and Wilkinson and others in their group), how I understand her and the Bible's teaching of creation, and evidence that supports the Investigative Judgment. How much more conservative can I get? You seem to be demanding a "Proof Text" for the ordination of women. You don't realize that you are free to bring your extra Biblical ideas and force them on us, but don't want to listen to our ideas. We, all of us, when we read something the writer wrote something with his background and experience. We read it with our background and experience. None of us read the same thing exactly the same. That is why the trinity has to include God working with our subjective as well as the objective manifestations of God the Father and God the Son. You give us Bible verses with what you assume the verses mean from your background and things that you have heard and picked up here and there and you demand us to take YOUR assumptions about what the text says and we are not allowed to share how we came to our understanding of the text. Every understanding on the Bible is based on a higharchy of: tradition, hints, evidence and proof. Most of the Bible is evidence. There is a HUGE difference between looking at a text and bringing in "Tradition interprets this text this way. That church counsel said that the texts means, Luther said this and Calvin said that and I just read in the weekly world report while waiting in line at the supermarket..." And "Linguist have pointed out that this word has these shades of meaning." "The geographical, historical, culture where this text was written believed" and what have we learned more about the literary, historical, geographical and cultural contexts. It is not reading into the Bible to point out "There is a Chiasm in the text and the structure points out..." When you read and discuss scripture you have 2 choices. Read the words and have them submit to your imagination, or try to learn all you can about what those words mean and have them have authority over you.

Good advise for everyone....